Lodge, Richard v. Wayland, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20140342)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords July 21, 2014 SPR14/342 Mark J. Lanza, Esq. 9 Damonmill Square, Suite 4A4 Concord MA 01742 Dear Attorney Lanza: I have received the petition of Richard K. Lodge Editor-in-Chief, GateHouse Media West Unit, Editor, Metro West Daily News appealing the response of the Town of Wayland School Department (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Lodge requested access to and copies of Town School Committee meeting executive session minutes. Superintendent of Schools Paul Stein denied this request, simply stating the responsive records "are exempt from the Public Records Law". "Public records" is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, created or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth to serve a public purpose, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). As of the date of this determination and despite attempts by members of my staff to reach you, the Department has not met its burden under the Public Records Law in responding to this records request. Under the Public Records Law and the Access Regulations (Regulations) all requests for public records must be met with a response within ten (10) days of the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b); 950 C.M.R. 32.05. The response may be an offer to provide records, a fee estimate for provision of the records, or a denial. The Department is advised that all records custodians must comply with both the Public Records Law and the Regulations with respect to the timeliness of response. The ten-day provision is a maximum, rather than a minimum, time frame for complying with a public records request. The Public Records Law states that "the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies." G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) (emphasis added). See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995). The response by the Department did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Accordingly, the Department is advised that to comply with the Public Records Law and its Regulations it must OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Mark J. Lanza, Esq. SPR14/342 Page Two July 21, 2014 provide specificity with respect to any denial of access to public records. This requires a records custodian to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records. The Department has yet to meet its burden in proving with specificity why responsive records have not been made available. Accordingly, the Department is hereby ordered, within ten (10) days of this order, to provide Mr. Lodge with the requested records, or provide to Mr. Lodge and this office, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record. If the Department is planning to charge for the cost of complying with this public records request, Mr. Lodge must be provided with a detailed written, good faith estimate on each particular request. Once the Department receives the estimate funds, the records must be provided. Failure to comply with this administrative order may result in the filing of a complaint for enforcement in the Superior Court by Mr. Lodge. This administrative appeal is closed. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Richard K. Lodge